Summary
The topic “Trump vs. Harris: Projected National Debt Increases by FY 2035” examines the potential impact of the economic proposals from former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris on the U.S. national debt over the next decade. According to analyses from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), Trump’s policies are projected to add significantly more to the national debt than Harris’s plans, with estimates suggesting an increase of $7.5 trillion for Trump compared to $3.5 trillion for Harris.
The CRFB’s report highlights the fiscal implications of each candidate’s proposals, revealing a stark contrast in their approaches to government spending and taxation. Trump’s plans, which include extending tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, could lead to substantial increases in the national debt, potentially reaching up to $15.2 trillion under high-cost scenarios. Conversely, Harris’s proposals, while also contributing to debt, are framed as more fiscally responsible, with projections indicating a maximum increase of $8.1 trillion. Both candidates face scrutiny for not adequately addressing the growing national debt, which currently exceeds $35 trillion and is expected to escalate further due to ongoing fiscal pressures such as rising costs for Social Security and Medicare.
Key Findings from the CRFB Analysis
- Trump’s Debt Impact: Trump’s economic proposals could add between $1.5 trillion and $15.2 trillion to the national debt, with a central estimate of $7.5 trillion. Major contributors to this increase include:
- Extending the 2017 tax cuts, estimated to cost over $5 trillion.
- Eliminating taxes on overtime pay and tips, as well as Social Security benefits, potentially adding another $3.6 trillion.
- Tariffs on imports, which are expected to generate revenue but may also raise consumer prices.
- Harris’s Debt Impact: Harris’s policies are projected to add between $0 and $8.1 trillion to the national debt, with a central estimate of $3.5 trillion. Key elements of her plan include:
- Extending tax cuts for households earning less than $400,000, contributing approximately $3 trillion to the debt.
- Expanding the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit, which could add around $1.4 trillion.
- Proposals to raise corporate tax rates and reduce prescription drug costs, aimed at offsetting some of the spending.
Economic Context
Both candidates’ plans come amid a backdrop of rising federal debt and increasing concerns about fiscal sustainability. The CRFB emphasizes that neither candidate’s approach sufficiently addresses the need for long-term debt reduction, suggesting that their proposals would maintain or exacerbate the current fiscal trajectory. As the U.S. approaches a historic high in debt as a percentage of GDP, the implications of these proposals will be a critical issue for voters and policymakers alike in the lead-up to the election.
Harris, Trump spending would both boost the U.S. debt. Here's how much.
Oct. 7 / Cbs News / Offers a straightforward breakdown of both candidates' projected debt increases, making it accessible for readers. The report succinctly highlights key figures, allowing for easy comparison between the two economic plans. “ Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have both made numerous promises, some in the realm of vague pledges and others backed by...
Donald Trump would balloon the federal debt by twice as much as Kamala Harris, report says
Oct. 7 / Quartz / Summarizes the CRFB's findings in a concise manner, making complex data digestible. The article’s focus on the implications of both candidates' plans on the national debt is particularly relevant for voters concerned about fiscal health. “ Regardless of whether Former President Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris becomes the next president of the United States, there’s at least one...
Trump's plans likely to raise U.S. debt
Oct. 8 / Buffalonews / Highlights the potential regressive impact of Trump's proposals, supported by multiple analyses. The dual approach of examining both candidates' plans adds depth, making it a valuable resource for understanding fiscal implications. “ WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump's economic proposals could inflame the nation's debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of...
Here’s how much Trump and Harris are projected to add to the national debt, according to analysts
Oct. 7 / New York Post / Provides a comprehensive overview of Trump's and Harris's economic strategies, focusing on tax implications. The detailed financial projections and comparisons enhance the reader's grasp of the candidates' fiscal responsibilities. “ The economic proposals of former President Donald Trump are projected to add $7.5 trillion to the national debt, while those of Vice President Kamala Harris...
Trump vs. Harris: Who Will Rack Up Most Debt for the US?
Oct. 7 / Newsweek / Examines the broader economic consequences of both candidates' proposals, emphasizing long-term growth challenges. The analysis from Wharton adds credibility, enriching the discussion around the candidates' fiscal strategies. “ Neither Vice President nor former President has put forward a plan to address the rising debt burden, according to a report released today from the . The...
Oct. 7 / Fast Company / Analyzes the impact of Harris's and Trump's economic proposals on national debt, emphasizing the stark differences in fiscal responsibility. The detailed estimates provide a clear framework for understanding each candidate's financial implications. “ No one is likely to be happy with the projected higher deficits laid out in a new analysis of Kamala Harris’ and Donald Trump’s economic plans . The analysis...
Column: A conservative think tank says Trump policies would crater the economy — but it's being kind
Oct. 8 / L.a. Times / Critiques the CRFB's analysis, arguing it oversimplifies the economic effects of candidates' policies. The author's perspective offers a refreshing take on the broader implications of fiscal policy beyond just deficit concerns. “ If you are wired into the flow of campaign news — as I am, for my sins — you will be inundated this week with reports of a new analysis of the fiscal impact...